Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
QuantumTokoloshi said:
plunker said:
plunker said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
I notice you avoid talking about the implications.
Decadal-scale ocean cycles, being cycles, will likely cancel out.
Centennial scale models, not falsified.
Asteroids/comets = a squirrel.
I notice you avoid talking about the implications.Decadal-scale ocean cycles, being cycles, will likely cancel out.
Centennial scale models, not falsified.
Asteroids/comets = a squirrel.
Inaccurate models = poor understanding of global climate
AGW = Badger with false teeth.
Lotus 50 said:
Nope. My turn of phrase comes from my science background - 95% certainty means there is a highly significant relationship between CO2 emissions and temp increases (in fact I think the actual stats level of confidence was 99%).
Well my science background (physics and chemistry) tells me that I've not seen any causal link at all. Plenty of models, that's all. And the past 18-20 years........the correlation?Lotus 50 said:
Nope. My turn of phrase comes from my science background - 95% certainty means there is a highly significant relationship between CO2 emissions and temp increases (in fact I think the actual stats level of confidence was 99%).
I have been given to understand that 95% probability is sort of entry level acceptability statistically speaking and anything less than that indicates it is on dodgy ground.95% suggests that there may be some merit in undertaking further analysis of the data used for the result and, assuming no serious anomalies are identified and left unresolved, possibly seeking funding for the next investigation based on the results obtained from the current work.
I would guess that 95% of, say, Manchester United supporters all around the world would say they support the "best team" on balance. This does not necessarily mean they are correct at any point in time and there are a number of factors outside their knowledge and the team's control that probably have more effect on the value for money and return on investment, for both team and fan, over which neither party has any control and probably little understanding.
If 100% of fans said "team A is the best team" I would suspect brainwashing. Either that or they would turn out to be North Korean.
plunker said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
plunker said:
plunker said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
I notice you avoid talking about the implications.
Decadal-scale ocean cycles, being cycles, will likely cancel out.
Centennial scale models, not falsified.
Asteroids/comets = a squirrel.
I notice you avoid talking about the implications.Decadal-scale ocean cycles, being cycles, will likely cancel out.
Centennial scale models, not falsified.
Asteroids/comets = a squirrel.
Inaccurate models = poor understanding of global climate
AGW = Badger with false teeth.
plunker said:
Sceptics - it has been proffered that ocean cycles are behind the slowdown in warming and the implication is that warming will accelerate when the cycles flip the other way. Any comments on that, besides 'the models didn't predict it' (and 'Taxes!' and 'Asteroids!')?
For myself,as a non scientific person, it would appear as if it is just an excuse, things went wrong with the theory, so come up with an explanation for the pause, instead they should have looked at the original theory and questioned it validity, but most people know that would never happen, has anybody questioned the theory? Lotus 50 said:
You may not have seen, but how well have you looked?
Pretty well. I at least read the synopsis if not the full paper of anything mentioned here, in the MSM, on Watts and Judith Curry's blog. So not everything and not in full depth but more than average I'd say. I have zero interest in either camp being right, I'd just like to know the truth. Not quite zero interest I suppose as I object to being bent over the green alter and wallet-raped based on an unproven hypothesis. The vociferous pro-AGW types seem to be of three types. Either financially, reputationally (is that a word?) or philosophically (political, usually left wing and/or green) interested in the the theory being correct. The likes of the lovely Mr Yeo and the Clegg family lining their pockets, certain climate scientists whose careers and grants depend on it and the mid- to far-left who see it as a way of attacking capitalism and taxing 'the rich' more.They seem to get more vociferous the more the data flies off in a different direction.
Perhaps this should be in the other thread.
hairykrishna said:
CO2 absorbs photons. The energy is thermalised through collisions with all the other molecules surrounding it. A proportion of the CO2 is in a high enough energy state that it emits photons. The proportion depends on the temperature of the gas mixture. These photons are emitted in all directions i.e. some of them go back down, transferring energy to lower levels of the atmosphere.
Well CO2 absorbs photons - but only 15 micron photons. I presume the oversight was unintentional!Without doubt, there will be a proportion of CO2 molecules which will emit 15 micron photons - however, they probably will not.
Even so - you are still left with the fact that the only 15 micron photons in the upper atmosphere will have been produced by CO2 molecules (i.e. NOT from the surface). And these are CO2 molecules which have been energised through collision with nearest neighbour molecules (probably N2).
Now, regardless of whether said photon goes up/down/left/right once generated, what does it do next?
plunker said:
Sceptics - it has been proffered that ocean cycles are behind the slowdown in warming and the implication is that warming will accelerate when the cycles flip the other way. Any comments on that, besides 'the models didn't predict it' (and 'Taxes!' and 'Asteroids!')?
And if that doesn't happen once they have 'flipped'? another theory?plunker said:
Sceptics - it has been proffered that ocean cycles are behind the slowdown in warming and the implication is that warming will accelerate when the cycles flip the other way. Any comments on that, besides 'the models didn't predict it' (and 'Taxes!' and 'Asteroids!')?
The predicted increase in temperature has not happened, in fact no increase for 2 decades, does that not indicate a large with the current models and resulting output?Why are these ocean cycles not included in the predictive global temperature models? Clearly it is an important parameter to omit if it can overwhelm the effects of CO2.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Wednesday 4th March 20:02
PRTVR said:
plunker said:
Sceptics - it has been proffered that ocean cycles are behind the slowdown in warming and the implication is that warming will accelerate when the cycles flip the other way. Any comments on that, besides 'the models didn't predict it' (and 'Taxes!' and 'Asteroids!')?
For myself,as a non scientific person, it would appear as if it is just an excuse, things went wrong with the theory, so come up with an explanation for the pause, instead they should have looked at the original theory and questioned it validity, but most people know that would never happen, has anybody questioned the theory? plunker said:
Not lately that I'm aware. I think in terms of where research is focussed the CO2 science is considered pretty solid and a 'given' so the answer is more likely to lie elsewhere.
Nobody disputes the science that says CO2 warms the atmosphere. What is in dispute is the various forcings that the models assume and that have not been observed thus any warming from man-made CO2 is marginal at best (or worst!).plunker said:
PRTVR said:
plunker said:
Sceptics - it has been proffered that ocean cycles are behind the slowdown in warming and the implication is that warming will accelerate when the cycles flip the other way. Any comments on that, besides 'the models didn't predict it' (and 'Taxes!' and 'Asteroids!')?
For myself,as a non scientific person, it would appear as if it is just an excuse, things went wrong with the theory, so come up with an explanation for the pause, instead they should have looked at the original theory and questioned it validity, but most people know that would never happen, has anybody questioned the theory? plunker said:
PRTVR said:
plunker said:
Sceptics - it has been proffered that ocean cycles are behind the slowdown in warming and the implication is that warming will accelerate when the cycles flip the other way. Any comments on that, besides 'the models didn't predict it' (and 'Taxes!' and 'Asteroids!')?
For myself,as a non scientific person, it would appear as if it is just an excuse, things went wrong with the theory, so come up with an explanation for the pause, instead they should have looked at the original theory and questioned it validity, but most people know that would never happen, has anybody questioned the theory? What I've been waiting for looks as if it's on the horizon. The world is going to suffer, due to the politicians belief in climate change, which humans are apparently responsible for. It is suggested that 80% of coal reserves, 50% of gas, and 33% of oil reserves will remain in the ground. So how do we replace the materials made from those?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/03...
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/03...
robinessex said:
What I've been waiting for looks as if it's on the horizon. The world is going to suffer, due to the politicians belief in climate change, which humans are apparently responsible for. It is suggested that 80% of coal reserves, 50% of gas, and 33% of oil reserves will remain in the ground. So how do we replace the materials made from those?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/03...
:bbcpensionholdersrubbingtheirhandswithglee:http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/03...
plunker said:
Not lately that I'm aware. I think in terms of where research is focussed the CO2 science is considered pretty solid and a 'given' so the answer is more likely to lie elsewhere.
Au contraire mon ami. That is precisely the time when alternatives should be reviewed in detail.QuantumTokoloshi said:
plunker said:
Sceptics - it has been proffered that ocean cycles are behind the slowdown in warming and the implication is that warming will accelerate when the cycles flip the other way. Any comments on that, besides 'the models didn't predict it' (and 'Taxes!' and 'Asteroids!')?
The predicted increase in temperature has not happened, in fact no increase for 2 decades, does that not indicate a large with the current models and resulting output? QuantumTokoloshi said:
Why are these ocean cycles not included in the predictive global temperature models? Clearly it is an important parameter to omit if it can overwhelm the effects of CO2.
Clearly ocean cycles are important for understanding decadal climate varaiation, but it's not really clear that it matters to the bigger question of climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 and all that. They're trying to improve the models for decadal predictions I believe but it's a new endeavour - I'm pretty sceptical they'll make much headway.Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Wednesday 4th March 20:02
PRTVR said:
plunker said:
PRTVR said:
plunker said:
Sceptics - it has been proffered that ocean cycles are behind the slowdown in warming and the implication is that warming will accelerate when the cycles flip the other way. Any comments on that, besides 'the models didn't predict it' (and 'Taxes!' and 'Asteroids!')?
For myself,as a non scientific person, it would appear as if it is just an excuse, things went wrong with the theory, so come up with an explanation for the pause, instead they should have looked at the original theory and questioned it validity, but most people know that would never happen, has anybody questioned the theory? Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff